Should the ACA re-join USA Cycling?

Recently the American Cycling Association released the results of a recent survey, after a quick review of it all one answer that seemed to stand out was "Would you like to see the ACA forge a better relationship with USA Cycling". 70% said yes.

Do many remember why Colorado ever broke away from USA Cycling? A little history on BRAC tells a little but the answer to why is important because a lot has changed in the world since BRAC was formed in 1976.
This is a snippet on the ACA website on BRAC (link above)

B.R.A.C. has existed as a member District Association since 1976 and has always provided the local support named above, except for the insurance coverage. The organization has always been the source of information for the racing community in Colorado. The organization has had a successful ranking system for many years knows as: BAR/BAT, Best All-around Rider and Best All-around Team. This has been a long running competition to see how one stacks up with their fellow racers in the state. This ranking system attempts to cover all of the disciplines, but mainly focuses on the road racing side of the house.

News Item: 


Should the ACA re-join USA Cycling?

[FYI, this did not come from the Admin, a mistake was made and this was reposted from a reader, apologies for the mistake]

Be careful with drawing conclusions - only 28% of the total respondents wanted to "rejoin", while another 42% want a better relationship. The 231 people who say they want to rejoin represent less than 8% of ACA members. Claiming that a "majority of racers" want to join USAC is misleading and far from what the survey tells us. Another way of looking at it: 72% of survey respondents do not want to rejoin, and 92% of ACA members either have no opinion (did not bother with the survey) or do not want to join.


So what would we gain by rejoining? All ACA members would pay $60/year for a road or cyclocross license, compared to $45 now. The few who are members of both would see a benefit in not having to pay the ACA membership fee.

But in reality, what does USAC offer the ordinary racer, which most of the 3000 ACA members are? I think most people just want an easy way to check their results within a day of the race, see what is happening with the best all-around rider competition, and find out about upcoming races. Try doing that with USAC - maybe it's me, but I have a heck of a time trying to find race results on their website. USAC seems to be geared toward the elite racer, not the ordinary local weekend racer.

I like the ACA

I agree with Linda. All I want is to see the local race results soon after a race, check when new races are coming up, have a local forum, and the BAR/BAT thing is cool too. The USAC still doesn't have results posted from one of the Tour of the Gila stages and that is a big race! Communication with Yvonne is extremely efficient and fast too.

What would Colorado gain?

Joining USAC would NOT bring a NRC race. We did have one a few years ago in Parker. Went away due to Money $$$. Very expensive to host one. Does NOT have ANYTHING to do with ACA...

Results. Look at other states and see how they do with results. We pay $2 a rider per race to have results, website, state rep, BAR/BAT & BCR/BCT tabulations. Would still need that surcharge if went back to USAC.

License Cost - I would like to see ACA Bring in back down $5 or $10 instead of spending money on UNNEEDED website re-write. Waste of $40K!!! Yes, I love ACA but everything with the 2008 website was good.

Agreed. $40K for a website

Agreed. $40K for a website rewrite is a waste of money. Maybe I missed it (like I missed the ACA survey), but was there ever a survey of the ACA membership to find out whether we saw a need for a new, $40K website? Was there ever a survey or user study to find out what features we would like in a new $40K website? I know it's a work-in-progress, but, so far, all I've seen is that several useful features have disappeared (e.g. member lookup, "all categories" selection in results, etc). In general, I think the ACA has been doing a great job recently, but this $40K website rewrite is completely unnecessary, especially during a time when everyone should be pinching pennies. Is Obama running the ACA now? ;-)

survey comments

I was surprised that the ACA published the comments for the survey--it seems that a lot of respondents commented thinking they'd be anonymous.

There sure were a lot of people who had harsh opinions on the worth of womens racing. Some of the comments were obviously tongue-in-cheek (at least I hope), but others were outrageous in their ignorance. Are there really that many ACA members who are not in favor of growing womens racing? I know this issue is not new; I was just astonished to see so many people say that no more--or even less--should be done to get more women riding bikes.

Even though some of the ACA survey's comments reminded me of reading the Daily Camera's, there were some good ideas hidden in all the crap and contention. Growing female and junior participation through cyclocross, for instance, was a suggestion that came up a few times. Other bodies like OBRA have been able to tremendously improve the size of their womens fields in all disciplines through cyclocross, which has a lower barrier to entry than road racing. Hopefully the ACA will be able to implement some of the insightful suggestions from the survey.

The real reason BRAC left

The real reason BRAC left the USCF? You won't like what I have to say...but here it goes.

In late 1998 the USCF stopped the District Representative program. In its place they went to a paid staff in the field with people who would cover several states.

That meant only one thing! Beth lost her control over CO racing...and Yvonne.

And, at the same time, liability insurance became available after over a decade of not being available. The two were put together and Beth had her empire back again.

I was there then and most of you weren't.